Mavrelous wrote:Cubbies2120 wrote:MoneyTalks41890 wrote:
Real good chance Embiid doesn’t play enough games, which I think would be a dumb reason for someone not to get MVP. I get the rationale but the voters should factor that and decide on their own he didn’t play enough rather than not being able to vote for him.
Well, they pretty much did that if you look at the historical MVPs. I believe only one MVP missed more than 10 games in the last 40 years?
If anything, putting in the minimum games played at 65 (meaning 17 missed games are allowed) HELPS the chronically injured/resting players. Now the voters can ignore the historical precedent of 10 games missed, and allow for an additional 7 games to be missed.
Not with Embiid, the sour taste from his previous selection, and his history of failures in the off season has him on short leesh.
Personally, I think Embiid will play less than 70 games, and if SGA finishes top 3 in the west they'll find any reason to give it to him, same way they gave it to Embiid last year, despite Jokic and Giannis being just as deserving.
Yeah. I am here as well. He may be leading the race now, but I'd bet money voters aren't going to award the worst playoff performer of all time amongst MVPS a second mvp
He may lead the race, but he's absolutely not favored in reality.
It's Jokic's award to lose. After last season, he's absolutely going to have a narrative advantage whether he deserves it or not.
Unless SGA and Luka continue this production WITH top 3 seeding, or the #1 seed in SGA's case, Jokic already has it won.
The NBA is reality tv. I mean, Jokic doesn't take more than 3 free throws a game for like a month, but against the Warriors, on Christmas, the most watched Nuggets game of the year, he gets 18?
It's all nonsense. Jokic's MVP to lose still.
) 'minimum games required', it basically told voters "Forget historical precedent, now people are allowed to miss 17 games"...
